linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] dmaengine: fsl-edma: integrate TCD64 support for i.MX95

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZU5VgY3EHU6STHVX@lizhi-Precision-Tower-5810>
Date:   Fri, 10 Nov 2023 11:08:33 -0500
From:   Frank Li <Frank.li@....com>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
        imx@...ts.linux.dev, joy.zou@....com,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        peng.fan@....com, robh+dt@...nel.org, shenwei.wang@....com,
        vkoul@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] dmaengine: fsl-edma: integrate TCD64 support for
 i.MX95

On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 04:52:49PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10/11/2023 16:36, Frank Li wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 04:10:46PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 10/11/2023 15:59, Frank Li wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@....com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>
> >>>> Three kbuild reports with build failures.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have impression this was never build-tested and reviewed internally
> >>>> before posting. We had such talk ~month ago and I insisted on some
> >>>> internal review prior submitting to mailing list. I did not insist on
> >>>> internal building of patches, because it felt obvious, so please kindly
> >>>> thoroughly build, review and test your patches internally, before using
> >>>> the community for this. I am pretty sure NXP can build the code they send.
> >>>
> >>> This build error happen at on special uncommon platform m6800. 
> >>
> >> Indeed csky and alpha are special. Let's see if LKP will find other
> >> platforms as well.
> >>
> >>> Patch is tested in imx95 arm64 platform.
> >>
> >> That's not enough. It's trivial to build test on riscv, ppc, x86_64 and
> >> i386. Building on only one platform is not that much.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I have not machine to cover all platform.
> >>
> >> I was able to do it as a hobbyist, on my poor laptop. What is exactly
> >> the problem that as hobbyist I can, but NXP cannot?
> > 
> > There are also difference configs. I think 'kernel test robot' is very good
> > tools. If there are guide to mirror it, we can try. It is not neccesary to
> > duplicate to develop a build test infrastrue.
> 
> Sorry, there is no build infrastructure here. I done it on my laptop.
> 
> > 
> > The issue is not that run build test. The key problem is how to know a
> > protential problem will be exist, and limited a build/config scrope.
> 
> These are all the trivial configs - allyes and allmod.

Thanks let me know about allyes and allmod.

> 
> > 
> > Even I have risc\ppc\x86_64 built before I submmit patch, still can't
> > capture build error if I missed just one platform mc6800.
> 
> So you did not read these build reports. This is not "mc6800" platform.
> This is allyes and allmod, the most obvious builds, after defconfig.

Sorry, I have not read it carefully. Just glance happen at mcf_xxx. I known
I missed test this platform.

Generally, I read carefully when I work on the fix patches.

> 
> > 
> > For `readq` error also depend on the configs.
> 
> Read again the build reports from LKP.
> 
> > 
> > Actually, we major focus on test edmav1, .... v5 at difference platforms
> > before submit patches. 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>